Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day020.14
Last-Modified: 2000/07/24
MR IRVING: All four?
A. It is a package, but that, of course, it is a kind of
fluid, and I said earlier on that there are some people
who will deny one, deny the other, partially deny one
proposition, partially affirm another. It is not
something that ----
Q. It sounds to me as though the package is adjusted
according to whom you are trying to sling it around the
neck of?
A. No, that is not the case.
Q. Well, you are just saying that one has to be a member of
all four except in some circumstances when it can be less
which seems to be ----
A. Sorry, no. What I am saying is that it is a matter of
degree and so on, but I would describe Holocaust --
I would have no doubt that someone who subscribed to all
four propositions was a Holocaust denier in the sense that
is generally understood.
Q. Yes.
A. And, indeed, appears in Professor Lipstadt's book.
Q. So we rapidly wrap up that passage, the second
criterion
is that the person says that gas chambers were not
used?
. P-122
A. Yes.
Q. If somebody says they were used in some places but not
in
other places, does he qualify or ----
A. Well, no, not if he or she is accurate. I mean,
clearly,
gas chambers were used in some ----
Q. If somebody says that they were used in a small scale
but
not on a large scale?
A. I am trying to give you an extremely brief summary of
a
rather lengthy section of where I go into these in a
great
deal more detail.
Q. This is what is at the root of the case, you
appreciate
that?
A. Of course I do. That is why I have written this
section.
Q. Well, it is quite a brief section and I am trying to
establish ----
A. No, I mean the whole section on Holocaust denial, not
this
very brief conclusion.
Q. But if somebody denies that the gas chambers were used
on
a mass factories of death basis, but they were used on
a
smaller scale, wherever, would he be a Holocaust
denier?
A. Well I have explained earlier on that this very, that
what
I mean is that gas chambers were not used for the
systematic extermination of large numbers of Jews,
that is
what...
Q. The third criterion is that there was no systematic
killing of Europe's Jews, in other words ----
. P-123
A. Yes, that is right, that it was not systematic, yes.
Q. I think we all understand what we mean by that.
A. Yes.
Q. If it was haphazard, if somebody accepts it is
haphazard
but denies it was a government action, State action?
A. Yes.
Q. Then he qualifies, he is a Holocaust denier. Then the
fourth one is the propaganda story, the fact ----
A. Yes.
Q. --- that the Allies invented this story as a
propaganda?
A. That is right.
Q. Yes. But as you are having difficulty even now in
determining to the satisfaction of myself, certainly,
and
a large number of people in this court, perhaps,
exactly
what is meant by these four criteria, it is a bit of a
vague concept, is it not, but it is like an elephant,
you
know what it is, you cannot necessarily describe it,
is
that right?
A. I am not having difficulties, Mr Irving.
Q. Well, I am having difficulty getting a clear
definition
from you on any one of these four.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I have been told what the
definition is. It is for me to decide whether it is a
satisfactory definition, but I am in absolutely no
doubt
what the definition is. It could not be more clearly
set
out.
. P-124
MR IRVING: You accept that one has to be a member of all
four
or just one of them?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, I think I said a few minutes ago
when
reciting what Professor Evans has said, no, he does
not
think you have to subscribe to all four view points.
MR IRVING: But am I right in believing that it is your
Lordship who decides rather than the witness's
definition?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of course it is.
MR IRVING: Yes. Can we now proceed to "Connections with
Holocaust deniers" which is section 3.5, page 174?
The
burden of the charge you are trying to make here, am
I right, is guilt by association? "Tell me who your
friends are and I will tell you who you are", I think
is a
Spanish expression, is that correct?
A. No, it is not, no.
Q. You list here a number of names of people who you
identify
as Holocaust deniers and you say because these people
have
been seen in the same room as me, effectively, this
makes
me one too. Is that putting it too simply?
A. Yes.
Q. Right. Can we leap straight ahead to page 183 because
this, I think, justifies me in doing the leap?
Beginning
at paragraph 15, we are talking about the institute of
Historical Review, is that right?
A. Yes.
. P-125
Q. And you do not consider this is a bona fide Institute
at
all, do you?
A. No.
Q. It is just comprised of people who have no
qualifications
and have the wrong views or views you disapprove of?
A. No, I do not say that.
Q. Yes. But what you do make plain at the beginning of
this
paragraph 15, and I quote: "Irving has denied that he
is
affiliated to the Institute in any formal capacity,
and
this is strictly speaking true"?
A. Yes. I go on to say: "He is a member neither of its
Board nor of the Editorial Advisory Board of its
Journal". I think it is only fair of me to point that
out.
Q. Well, do you accept that this is true?
A. Yes.
Q. That I have no affiliation whatsoever with that body.
A. No formal affiliation.
Q. Well, what other kind of affiliation can there be?
A. An informal affiliation.
Q. What do you mean by informal affiliation? That they
send
unsolicited materials to me? Is that an informal
affiliation?
A. No. I go on to describe that in the rest of the
paragraph.
Q. "He has been a frequent visitor", line 3 on page 184,
is
. P-126
that correct?
A. Yes, you have been a frequent visitor.
Q. "... frequent visitor to the annual conferences
organized
by the Institute of Historical Review"?
A. That is right, yes. You spoke.
Q. Can you estimate how many times in the last 17 years I
have visited these conferences to justify the word
"frequent"?
A. Why have you chosen 17 as a number?
Q. Because it is 17 years.
A. Since what?
Q. Between -- over the period you are talking about.
A. Oh, I see. Well, it is -- you are ----
Q. How many is frequent? 20, 30, 50?
A. Your contacts of -- your speech of speeches ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: They are annual, so it could not be more
than
17, could it?
MR IRVING: My Lord, I can cut to the bottom line, as we
say,
and say the answer is five. Would you say that the
correct number of occasions on which I have attended
their
annual conference in whatever capacity is five?
A. Well, speaking. I say here: "To date you have spoken
to
audiences at the Institute five times. You spoke at
the
ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth conferences in
succession". So at that time, therefore, that is in
the
1990s, I think, am I right, you are ----
. P-127
MR IRVING: It is a span of 17 years.
A. No, at that time, that is to say, in the immediate run
up
to Professor Lipstadt' book, you were there on an
annual,
virtually an annual basis. There were also many
articles
about you in the Journal that the Institute prints and
many articles by you.
Q. I am picking on this word "frequent" visitor to the
annual
conferences and it turns out to be five times in 17
years?
A. You spoke at the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth
conferences in succession and at one other conference.
Q. That sounds like five to me.
A. Well, that is four and one other conference, and at
that
time you were a frequent visitor. I do not say you
are a
frequent -- I do not say, "He is a frequent visitor at
the
annual conferences", I am saying you have been and I
then go on to say precisely which conferences you
spoke
at.
Q. Five times in 17 years does not -- but I do not want
to
keep on hammering this point in otherwise I shall earn
a
rebuke.
A. Four times in four years, Mr Irving, that is frequent.
Q. Five times in 17 years is not a frequent visitor, by
any
reckoning, is it?
A. Four times in four years is a very frequent visitor,
Mr Irving.
Q. What makes you think that the ninth, tenth, eleventh
and
. P-128
twelfth conferences were on an annual basis?
A. Ah, you may be -- you may have me there. Were they
not?
Q. No. But you are assuming that they are?
A. Yes, I thought they were, I must say.
Q. So the word "frequent", in other words, is wrong?
A. Are you telling me they are not then? Would you like
to
tell me the dates of those conferences?
Q. They are either every two or three years.
A. So in that case, 17 years, there would be eight, seven
or,
let me see, eight or nine conferences, so that five
visits
is actually rather frequent; it is the majority of
them,
is it not?
Q. Do you agree that five times in 17 years does not
qualify
for the word "frequent visitor"?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think the point he is making is that if
they are every two or three years, you have been to
every
single one. I mean, that is the result of what you --
--
MR IRVING: I must have learned English at a different
school.
The word "frequent" to me does not imply five times in
17
years, my Lord.
A. But, Mr Irving, if you are saying that the conferences
took place every two or three years, then in 17 years
there can only have been six or seven, or at most
eight
conferences, and you admitted, you said that you were
at
five of those, that is almost every one; and that
certainly justifies saying that you are a frequent
. P-129
visitor. In fact, if that is the case that the
conferences were not, as I had thought, annual, then
I would have said an "almost 100 per cent attender",
not
"frequent visitor".
Q. Not a frequent visitor?
A. Almost 100 per cent attender if they were at greater
intervals than one year each. As it is, I say, "He
has
been a frequent visitor to the annual conferences".
Then
I say, I give when these conferences were, the ninth,
tenth, eleventh and twelfth conferences in succession.
That is frequent to me, that period. I am unclear now
as
to whether you think the conferences were annual or
not.
Q. The conferences were held (and I can tell you this) I
am
sure on the basis of once every two years?
A. Right.
Q. And sometimes less frequently.
A. In that case, in the last 17 years we are talking
about
majority of the conferences and I think that justifies
saying that you were a frequent visitor at them.
Q. Five times is not a frequent visitor and I am sorry to
have to keep on ----
A. Five times is a frequent visitor when there have only
----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: This is becoming utterly futile ----
A. --- been eight conferences.
MR IRVING: Let us move on. We are now moving on. You
quite
rightly say there have been articles about me in the
. P-130
Journal. Are you suggesting that I have in any way
engineered these articles about me in the Journal of the
Institute?
A. In the fourth and sixth issues of Volume 13. That shows,
I think, that the Journal thought highly of you.
Q. I now start six lines from the bottom: "The first issue
of volume 13 included one article by Irving and two others
about him. The next issue had another article by Irving,
and he also printed two more articles in the first volume
of" -- have you any evidence that I have on any occasion
whatsoever written an article for the Journal?
A. Well, we have been through this before, Mr Irving, last
Thursday.
Q. Yes, and what was the answer?
A. The answer was that these are edited versions of the
speeches you gave at your frequent visits to the
Institute's conferences, and that I presume that these
versions appeared as articles in the Journal with your
approval and permission since, presumably, they are
copyright, its copyrights assigned to you.
Q. Do you accept that ----
A. Are you suggesting that they appeared without your
knowledge and without your permission?

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.